If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   County: So is gay marriage legal or not? State: Hell I dunno. County: So we can do whatever? State: Hey why not?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 100
    More: Strange, same-sex marriages, gender neutral, county  
•       •       •

10152 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 6:01 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 07:05:40 PM
New Mexico > Tex-ass

Good on ya, NM!
 
2013-08-21 07:06:16 PM

tulax: AG is a dingleberry.  He may think the one man, one woman law is unconstitutional (I do, too) but he needs to defend it.  The best way to get it overturned is to fight it up to the NMSC and let them take a crack at it.  If he won't defend it, the issue won't get decided for years, and then there is the risk that all of the couples that took advantage of this "gap" get their lives shredded apart.


That's not true.

Courts use thingamajigs called precedent to figure out WAT DO.  Since a bunch of other courts including SCOTUS have said "no, stop it, no1curr", then any laws that try to force a "1 peen + 1 vag for Jeebus" shackaround are unlawful.

The AG knows it's a waste o' cash and time.  He's got other things to do, like dress up like Batman and fight crime.
 
2013-08-21 07:12:55 PM
I would not be surprised if the repubs in New mexico try to "remedy " this by "fixing" the law.   I applaud this county .
 
2013-08-21 07:14:59 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: And seriously, who farking cares? I am a straight male, and though i don't understand gay men, i have nothing against them. They are humans, and have the same right to happiness, marriage, the exact same things that hetro couples do. It affects my life not one iota if a man marries a man in my state, or a woman to a woman. I don't know them, and it has 0-affect on my life at all. Why should i give i shiat? I don't. And even if i DID know them, i still wouldn't care. They don't give a fark about my life, or how i choose to lead it..why should it be my business what they do with theirs? Its not. Mind you own business people, and we will all get along great.

/My 2 cents.


You sound gay
 
2013-08-21 07:15:01 PM
is there a non-religious reason it should be any different? I haven't heard one.
 
2013-08-21 07:18:29 PM

tulax: AG is a dingleberry.  He may think the one man, one woman law is unconstitutional (I do, too) but he needs to defend it.  The best way to get it overturned is to fight it up to the NMSC and let them take a crack at it.  If he won't defend it, the issue won't get decided for years, and then there is the risk that all of the couples that took advantage of this "gap" get their lives shredded apart.


WTF are you blathering about?

New Mexico DOES NOT HAVE a one man, one woman law.  They never passed one.

And the current AG is actively taking the position that it's unconstitutional for marriage equality rights to be denied given the law.
 
2013-08-21 07:19:49 PM
This is why I am proud to call Las Cruces and Dona Ana County my adopted home, even though I don't live there any more.
 
2013-08-21 07:24:49 PM
Woo! First time we're in the national news for something that doesn't involve huge tracts of land burning to the ground or religious nuts derping it up.
 
2013-08-21 07:25:15 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Great. I bet tomorrow someone tries to marry a cactus.


Plenty of women have already found themselves married to a total prick.  Now the guys get a chance too!

/glad NM is finally getting one right
 
2013-08-21 07:29:18 PM
This wouldn't have happened if it weren't for all that blue meth.
 
2013-08-21 07:30:48 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-21 07:30:58 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Great. I bet tomorrow someone tries to marry a cactus.


You just don't understand our love!
 
2013-08-21 07:36:28 PM

GiraffeWaffles: Uranus Is Huge!: Great. I bet tomorrow someone tries to marry a cactus.

You just don't understand our love!


But your honor I swear it wanted me to stick with it forever.
 
2013-08-21 07:38:54 PM
I think this is really a city block issue. City blocks should decide individually if they want to uphold constitutional rights regarding equality.
 
2013-08-21 07:45:24 PM
Jeff Williams, a public information officer in the county's government and a reverend with Universal Life Church

get.happyproduct.com
 
2013-08-21 07:47:28 PM

cretinbob:

img.fark.net

I've seen your daughter. I'm not saying she's not attractive, but three goats is a little much to ask. Forget about the cow.
 
2013-08-21 07:52:09 PM
Brushed her teeth?  Now that is love!
 
2013-08-21 07:54:04 PM

Mugato: I really don't get the whole opposition to gay marriage thing. Marriage has always been about property. Its never been about love or procreation or any of that horseshiat. So why are religious people, who follow the Bible, that has the most cynical view on marriage ever written claim that marriage is about anything regarding heterosexual love?


Its because it was a way to define women as property of their male husbands. Thats what they mean by "the sanctity of marriage." The god-given right to own your woman and do as you please with her.
 
2013-08-21 08:06:00 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: And seriously, who farking cares? I am a straight male, and though i don't understand gay men, i have nothing against them. They are humans, and have the same right to happiness, marriage, the exact same things that hetro couples do. It affects my life not one iota if a man marries a man in my state, or a woman to a woman. I don't know them, and it has 0-affect on my life at all. Why should i give i shiat? I don't. And even if i DID know them, i still wouldn't care. They don't give a fark about my life, or how i choose to lead it..why should it be my business what they do with theirs? Its not. Mind you own business people, and we will all get along great.

/My 2 cents.


My thoughts EXACTLY. I'm a straight conservation leaning guy in his late twenties. Do what makes you happy, I honestly don't car.

/CSB was at hotel in Columbus last week and it happened to coincide with "cubfest 2013" I honestly thought it was some gathering of alumnis for some university...took me a while to realize what it really was. Those guys too, I honestly don't care what you do if it makes you happy.
 
2013-08-21 08:07:25 PM

BitwiseShift: cretinbob:

[img.fark.net image 320x240]
I've seen your daughter. I'm not saying she's not attractive, but three goats is a little much to ask. Forget about the cow.


It's true, and trust me, the problem isn't with her.  It's just that, well, have you priced goats lately?
 
2013-08-21 08:08:15 PM
Nulla poena sine lege scripta.

Speaking of segues, I also wanted to mention beer.
 
2013-08-21 08:10:49 PM

theMagni: Courts use thingamajigs called precedent to figure out WAT DO.  Since a bunch of other courts including SCOTUS have said "no, stop it, no1curr", then any laws that try to force a "1 peen + 1 vag for Jeebus" shackaround are unlawful.


Actually the SCOTUS  was pretty explicit that its DOMA decision was about DOMA at the federal level and states that already had legalized same-sex marriage. The Califonia case was dismissed for lack of plaintiff's standing. They did not invalidate existing state laws against same-sex marraige. That hasn't stopped others from citing it though.
 
2013-08-21 08:16:22 PM

Somacandra: theMagni: Courts use thingamajigs called precedent to figure out WAT DO.  Since a bunch of other courts including SCOTUS have said "no, stop it, no1curr", then any laws that try to force a "1 peen + 1 vag for Jeebus" shackaround are unlawful.

Actually the SCOTUS  was pretty explicit that its DOMA decision was about DOMA at the federal level and states that already had legalized same-sex marriage. The Califonia case was dismissed for lack of plaintiff's standing. They did not invalidate existing state laws against same-sex marraige. That hasn't stopped others from citing it though.


But the said CA prop 8 WAS discriminatory. So explain to us how something could be unconstitutionally discriminatory for the state but not federally?

I'll wait.
 
2013-08-21 08:18:05 PM

Corvus: Somacandra: theMagni: Courts use thingamajigs called precedent to figure out WAT DO.  Since a bunch of other courts including SCOTUS have said "no, stop it, no1curr", then any laws that try to force a "1 peen + 1 vag for Jeebus" shackaround are unlawful.

Actually the SCOTUS  was pretty explicit that its DOMA decision was about DOMA at the federal level and states that already had legalized same-sex marriage. The Califonia case was dismissed for lack of plaintiff's standing. They did not invalidate existing state laws against same-sex marraige. That hasn't stopped others from citing it though.

But the said CA prop 8 WAS discriminatory. So explain to us how something could be unconstitutionally discriminatory for the state but not federally?

I'll wait.


Oppss sorry they said the other way that DOMA was discriminatory. So how can STATES be discriminatory when the federal law can't?

Sorry I had it the wrong way.
 
2013-08-21 08:19:08 PM
I'm a certified Jedi Knight by the Universal Life Church. So if anyone needs to get married, lemme know.

/it only cost a couple bucks.
 
2013-08-21 08:19:59 PM

Somacandra: Actually the SCOTUS was pretty explicit that its DOMA decision was about DOMA at the federal level and states that already had legalized same-sex marriage.


So how is it ok for states to unconsitutional discriminate when they said that federally they can't?
 
2013-08-21 08:36:59 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: And seriously, who farking cares? I am a straight male, and though i don't understand gay men, i have nothing against them. They are humans, and have the same right to happiness, marriage, the exact same things that hetro couples do. It affects my life not one iota if a man marries a man in my state, or a woman to a woman. I don't know them, and it has 0-affect on my life at all. Why should i give i shiat? I don't. And even if i DID know them, i still wouldn't care. They don't give a fark about my life, or how i choose to lead it..why should it be my business what they do with theirs? Its not. Mind you own business people, and we will all get along great.

/My 2 cents.


I reall wish i could remember where I found this, because I'd like to properly attribute it, but one person formed a theory that is at least internally consistent.

A lot of the people who are hard-line against gay marriage feel that marrying a woman is something that a man has to do whether they want to or not.  It's an item on what they were brought up to believe was their scavenger hunt of life.   So they get married not out of choice, but out of a mandate in their personal values system.

Now enter gay marriage - marriage that is not for any other purpose but acknowledging that you want to spend the rest of your life with a person and grant them certain rights that are not allowed for unattached couples.  Their joy *infuriates* them.

When you hear people say that some guy they've never met and never will meet getting married will "destroy the sanctity of my marriage", what it really means is "their marriage's mere existence exposes my lie".
 
2013-08-21 08:48:48 PM

LeroyBourne: Cletus C.: Uranus Is Huge!: Cletus C.: The next time I'm in New Mexico I'm having gay sex, just to see what happens this time.

I jest.

I joust.

Don't GIS 'docking'.  Don't.  NSFW.


I just see a bunch of iPad docking stations... An Urban Dictionary search, however, puts this Australian Football club's name in a different light...
www.underconsideration.com
 
2013-08-21 08:51:48 PM
Good on him. Wish there were more folks like him. "Lots of happy people" seems like a good thing here. The rainbow tie is a nice touch.
 
2013-08-21 09:07:12 PM

CrscntBufS: Proud to be moving to New Mexico!!!


Proud to be from Dona Ana County! (Living in Fort Collins)
 
Rat
2013-08-21 09:08:06 PM
I'm a hardline republican from Texas, and I am happy for all the couples.  Its about time.

© mazel tov
 
2013-08-21 09:13:02 PM

exick: cynicalminion: well, technically, we do. would be pretty hilarious if wordings got changed to "its". but i think that probably has too much history of negative usage with regards to trans* folk.

"it" (and its possessive sibling "its") have long, long been used to refer to things that are not people. It's not like you have to be a member of the trans community to be horrified by its usage either. "no person under age can marry unless it obtains the consent of its parent or guardian." Just as someone who uses English, that sentence makes me want to claw my eyes out.


i was referring to the fact that "they" and "their" have a PLURAL connotation, and that we DO have a singular neuter pronoun in the english language.

my cynical side was the part that thought that "it obtains the consent of its parent or guardian" would in fact be HILARIOUS if it showed up in legislation.
 
2013-08-21 09:34:30 PM

Corvus: Somacandra: Actually the SCOTUS was pretty explicit that its DOMA decision was about DOMA at the federal level and states that already had legalized same-sex marriage.

So how is it ok for states to unconsitutional discriminate when they said that federally they can't?


I think it's that DOMA was being challenged...  the ruling revalidated marriages in all states that had legalized it, but although federally legal, same-sex marriage still had to be legalized by states with bans.

new mexico, apparently, can just keep on marrying anybody they want without new legislation.  good on them...
 
2013-08-21 09:40:19 PM
Man, the article made me happy but the comments saddened me because it made me realize how low the quality of trolling has got around here. This is from billpeck. Pay attention, because this is a masterpiece:

"Men and women (not gay), who want to enjoy a respectful joining for life, need to come up with a replacement for the word marriage so gays can have and enjoy their own method of joining (living together). The new word will specify naturally born man and woman as those being joined by the new term. The new term will be something like "Man and Woman Marriage". Straight men and women do not want to be confused with those gays that are not joined as man and woman. This appears to be a way to satisfy both groups and still retain distinct identity of each group.

Just to clear the air, if you are gay, we don't care how you live your life and we don't care who you live with; the fact is that you stole a very sacred word from the straight people, marriage, and you did it for a greedy reason. Your fight for benefits was and is greatly enhanced by the word marriage. Straight people fought hard and long for their benefits and you didn't have to fight at all; the term "civil union", which is what you really are, suits you folks fine except you would have to fight for benefits. The Supreme Court doesn't even realize just how they screwed things up; and, they won't until it is too late.

Some of you defend the joining by saying there is no male or female in the marriage; it is just two friends for life. Hmmmm sounds a little dull without real sex. Overall, gays have the advantage; when someone asks who is the she or he, you can change gender at will and just say he, she or it. We straight folks don't have that chameleon capability. This whole change in events may lead to legal prostitution; we could, once again, see long lines, of men. Like the old movie lines of past years. WOW, sounds great. There is something for women in this also; those of you that are bored housewives could get a good job and become one of the household bread winners.

The elimination of DOMA is also a way for foreign people to get green cards for entry into the United States of America; once in the United States the foreigner can do as they please. This will be the largest money making scheme and scam program to hit America since the Constitution of The United States; and, the Congress and the Supreme Court made it possible."
 
2013-08-21 09:40:46 PM

Cletus C.: The next time I'm in New Mexico I'm having gay sex, just to see what happens.


What's stopping you from doing it now?
 
2013-08-21 09:46:37 PM

Corvus: Somacandra: Actually the SCOTUS was pretty explicit that its DOMA decision was about DOMA at the federal level and states that already had legalized same-sex marriage.

So how is it ok for states to unconsitutional discriminate when they said that federally they can't?


if my understanding of how this works is correct, SCOTUS ruled DOMA unconstitutional.  in order for prop-8 to be ruled unconstitutional and overturned, it has to go to CA supreme court.

it has to do with why "state's rights" are such a big factor.  a state is not allowed to pass any laws that go AGAINST federal ruling, but they ARE allowed to pass legislation involving further restrictions.  so even though DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, CA is still able to say they don't recognize gay marriage.  and until CA itself overturns that, it's in place.

DOMA was a big win.  now states can use it as precedent if a case for overturning rulings, or amending legal wording comes up.  but fed law only sets a bar for where state law can go.  that's why states have their own constitutions as well.
 
2013-08-21 09:54:30 PM
I really need to get off my ass and get serious about opening my own place in Ruidosa soon. Even Travis County can't keep the fundy crazy at bay anymore. Good on 'ya Mr. County Clerk.
 
2013-08-21 10:15:12 PM

Corvus: Somacandra: Actually the SCOTUS was pretty explicit that its DOMA decision was about DOMA at the federal level and states that already had legalized same-sex marriage.

So how is it ok for states to unconsitutional discriminate when they said that federally they can't?


One possible reading is that Kennedy's stuff about gays and animus are pretty much dicta (not binding).  The people formally being discriminated, federally, were those who had state-recognized marriages, and their marriage was being discriminated against.  An Oklahoman couples' non-marriage was not being discriminated against federally, since it didn't exist. The plaintiffs weren't the plaintiffs to really request a nationwide 14th Amendment equal protection remedy. Again, it's a bunt and we know where it leads in five years or so, but that's the best synthesis I can come up to reconcile Kennedy's broad statements and the somewhat narrow technical decision.
 
2013-08-21 10:21:13 PM
Wed 'em all and let the judge sort it out! Bibles a blazin' boys!
 
2013-08-21 10:38:20 PM

cynicalminion: my cynical side was the part that thought that "it obtains the consent of its parent or guardian" would in fact be HILARIOUS if it showed up in legislation.


It obtains the consent, then it puts the lotion on its skin.

thismomentinblackhistory: Man, the article made me happy but the comments saddened me because it made me realize how low the quality of trolling has got around here. This is from billpeck. Pay attention, because this is a masterpiece:


The last paragraph is about on par with most non-contrarian trolls here, but the rest is gold.
 
2013-08-21 10:48:56 PM

roc6783: cynicalminion: my cynical side was the part that thought that "it obtains the consent of its parent or guardian" would in fact be HILARIOUS if it showed up in legislation.

It obtains the consent, then it puts the lotion on its skin.


this is kind of what i meant about the terminology.  there are enough negative connotations to using the neuter singular pronoun in english, but we do have one, and it (no pun intended) led to the "he-shes" and other terms that gave alot of the transgender spectrum of folks out there alot of hardship. but to be fair, a cactus would not be able to provide the consent of its parent or guardian, and thus would make MARRIAGE to it not an option.  take it home and molest it on your own time, sparky.
 
2013-08-21 11:06:25 PM

Mugato: I really don't get the whole opposition to gay marriage thing. Marriage has always been about property. Its never been about love or procreation or any of that horseshiat. So why are religious people, who follow the Bible, that has the most cynical view on marriage ever written claim that marriage is about anything regarding heterosexual love?


the opposition is about hate and not sharing
the opposition hates the gays (look at their mantra, hate the sin, not the sinner. why would you need that if there wasnt hate for the sinner to start with?)
the opposition hates sharing. if the gays get married, the gay spouse will get free stuff!! and the couple will get a TAX break just like us NORMAL people!!

lol
 
2013-08-22 12:21:27 AM

LeroyBourne: Cletus C.: Uranus Is Huge!: Cletus C.: The next time I'm in New Mexico I'm having gay sex, just to see what happens this time.

I jest.

I joust.

Don't GIS 'docking'.  Don't.  NSFW.


THATS what its called!

I couldnt remember last night. That was kind of a weird analogy...
 
2013-08-22 07:32:56 AM

Paris1127: LeroyBourne: Cletus C.: Uranus Is Huge!: Cletus C.: The next time I'm in New Mexico I'm having gay sex, just to see what happens this time.

I jest.

I joust.

Don't GIS 'docking'.  Don't.  NSFW.

I just see a bunch of iPad docking stations... An Urban Dictionary search, however, puts this Australian Football club's name in a different light...
[www.underconsideration.com image 574x260]


Freo sucks. I said it.  I barrack for the Crows. Yeah, I know. Still- f word Freo
 
2013-08-22 10:32:22 AM

Pincy: Cletus C.: The next time I'm in New Mexico I'm having gay sex, just to see what happens.

What's stopping you from doing it now?


From getting some in New Mexico? I'm not there.
 
2013-08-22 12:30:37 PM
Spiffy tag was on it's way there to get gay married but took a wrong turn at Albuquerque..
 
2013-08-22 04:10:39 PM
Jeff Williams, a public information officer in the county's government and a reverend with Universal Life Church, said he was marrying same-sex couples all day long while wearing his rainbow-colored tie.

Is it in his job description as a public information officer to be performing marriages while on the taxpaers dime?  Did he use vacation/comp. time to perform the marriages?  Sounds a lot like public corruption/theft to me.

Ellins, however, said "any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act."

Sounds like somebody practicing law outside the law in making such a sweeping statement.  That's the whole question that is before the courts.

By th eway, where is the outrage by the separation of church and state crowd?  Why does the government recognize any marriage performed by the clergy?  Isn't that combining the two?
 
2013-08-22 04:57:06 PM
EngineerAU * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-08-21 06:13:27 PM unyon: Like the one line in the article, you've made the error that gender=sex.
==================================================

Huh?

Gender=sex in ANY instance where gender would be used.

Obviously, however, gender!=sex in all instances where sex would be used... as sex can be a verb. So... you're saying that sex is a verb here?!
 
2013-08-22 06:10:41 PM

foxyshadis: Wed 'em all and let the judge sort it out! Bibles a blazin' boys!


This is probably an urban legend, but supposedly, England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I at one point accidentally legalized lesbianism because the new laws against homosexuality were using the book of Leviticus for their definition.  Leviticus explicitly outlaws male homosexuality, but says nothing at all about female homosexuality.
 
2013-08-22 08:32:14 PM

Mouser: foxyshadis: Wed 'em all and let the judge sort it out! Bibles a blazin' boys!

This is probably an urban legend, but supposedly, England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I at one point accidentally legalized lesbianism because the new laws against homosexuality were using the book of Leviticus for their definition.  Leviticus explicitly outlaws male homosexuality, but says nothing at all about female homosexuality.


I read somewhere that lesbianism wasn't legally punished because Queen Victoria didn't believe it existed. She didn't accept that it was possible, so there was no law against it.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report